POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

It will be interesting to see whether or nor Stutt squirms about this after working so hard to use this decode to push his bogus 4 foot claims.

You know, Craig, most of the hundreds of people looking at this thread will have no idea what you are talking about or why it is relevant to this topic. Would you please provide a little context for them?

You know, Craig, most of the hundreds of people looking at this thread will have no idea what you are talking about or why it is relevant to this topic. Would you please provide a little context for them?

The Aussie researcher referenced in the article, Warren Stutt, suggested on other forums that the last reported altitude in the data was 4 feet from the ground meaning the data would support an impact.

The Aussie researcher referenced in the article has been suggesting on other forums that the last reported altitude of the aircraft was 4 feet meaning the data would support an impact.

This is simply not true yet several others have ran with it.

It is important to note that the 4' Altitude is a Radar Altitude, has not been verified by anyone and is also listed by the NTSB as "not working or unconfirmed". Those who "run with it" as support for their impact theory at the Pentagon, conveniently disregard confirmed Pressure Altitude parameters showing too high for an impact.

In other words, if they want to throw out the "FLK DECK DOOR" parameter as "not working or unconfirmed", they also must throw out their newly decoded, unverified Radar Altitude parameter, thereby admitting they still have no proof for their impact theory.

It is important to note that the 4' Altitude is a Radar Altitude, has not been verified by anyone and is also listed by the NTSB as "not working or unconfirmed". Those who "run with it" as support for their impact theory at the Pentagon, conveniently disregard confirmed Pressure Altitude parameters showing too high for an impact.

Precisely.

Whenever some previously unknown researcher shows up out of nowhere providing fodder for the liars there is ground for suspicion.

His odd reaction to the information we have uncovered as shown in this thread did not ease my concerns regarding him personally so that's why it will be interesting to see his reaction to this important find that he looked over in his analysis.

Bottom line...questions about his honesty/intent can not change the data!

I think it's important to keep stressing to people that these types of fatal anomalies in govt provided data simply prove that THEIR story is false because THEIR data does not add up with what THEY say. This is key.

That is EXTREMELY important and blows the lid off their story but it does not indicate the data they provide really came from any plane at all. Most importantly we know for a FACT that the data is irreconcilable with the plane that the witnesses report on the north side of the citgo that could not have hit the building.

Basically when you tell a lie so big it's hard to make sure all aspects are covered and this is further proof that they did a sloppy job with their lie.